Global Warming

First things first, don't confuse weather with climate.

Theory: An explanation for a coherent body of instances.

888-431-7233

EMAIL

Rush Limbaugh:
"When I talk to people who believe in this Global Warming crap… it's fake science. They may have educations and degrees that say they are scientists, but they're not. They're political hacks and leftists."
        —December 11, 2009

I have no problem joining the Global Warming affirmation group. My reasons include the following facts:

1. A physical and ecological logic applies to Global Warming.

   Put another way, we add approximately 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere every year. These heat-trapping carbon dioxide gases ought to add to Earth's temperature in corresponding measures, considering the nature of a greenhouse. It appears as a fact that is indeed what is happening. Global warming has an existence in logical outcomes of human activity as well as a factual basis in more than logic, worldwide, measurable events.

2. Fossil fuel use for over 400 years.
3. Water vapor and greenhouse gas increases.
4. Deforestation by fire.
5. Melting ice caps.

I do not include recent weather catastrophes in my evaluation of Global Warming. Although helpful to understanding Global Warming, these mega-cyclones and mega-hurricanes are insufficient to prove Global Warming.

I begin by pointing to debates surrounding Global Warming discussions.

UCS Fact check:
A large majority of meteorology and other climate scientists agree about Global Warming's existence. Some 1,250 authors and 2,000 scientific expert reviewers agree about Global Warming. The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees about Global Warming's existence. An additional 18 American scientific associations agree that Global Warming is observably happening and a growing threat to our world.

No peer reviewed science journals have received scientific exposes attempting to refute Global Warming for years.

In spite of these facts, there have been few environmental issues that have polarized our nation as much as Global Warming. Still, we have much confusion. Those claiming that Global Warming "is a hoax" do not provide scientific research scrutinized under the microscope of peer reviewed journals. Just the same, we have those predicting that the Earth will eventually get so hot it will self-incinerate. Perhaps this is so, but we have no evidence of such an occurrence pending in the next one-hundred human generations. Then we have those like Limbaugh saying a warming planet is something manufactured by political operatives. Global Warming exists. Debate exists.

The problem is that the arguments against Global Warming are ideological, not scientific. Put another way, wishing something so does not make it so. We must ask, "Who stands to profit from global warming denial?".

Unlike many other hot-button issues, however, Global Warming is widely misunderstood by the general public. Confusion surrounding Global Warming comes at many levels: there are some who steadfastly believe that it is entirely a man-made issue while others equate Global Warming with the expanding hole in the atmosphere's ozone layer (a condition widely believed to be caused by widespread use of aerosols).

It's taken at least three decades for this idea of Global Warming to finally catch on. At one point some five years ago or so, a majority of Americans came to understand that Global Warming means an end to life on Earth as we know it. Something changed, though, and it wasn't Global Warming. Corporate and right-wing propaganda now sways public opinion from understanding Global Warming's threat to national security and environmental health, if we can separate these two.

So now what should stand as scientific fact stands as a political issue. There's no issue among climatologists and others who study Global Warming. There's no issue among people like myself that begin reading and thinking about Global Warming in the 1970s when Scientific American began covering it. We need to cause people to understand: Global Warming means our Earth warms more a tiny bit each day, almost imperceptibly. It's like boiling a frog. Place this critter in a pan of cool water. Strike a fire and slowly simmer. Before long the frog's boiling before it perceives the water's increasing temperature. Imperceptibly.

In context, the current average global temperature stands at about 57 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists conclude this means Earth's temperature rose. less than one degree over the last one hundred years. Consensus ends at this point. But before continuing, let me advise that this word "consensus" has a vague meaning. Those opposing Global Warming as a scientifically proven idea appear to have strong relationships with right-wing think tanks and corporate propagandists. Like the great hoax pushed on millions of addicted cigarette smokers, Global Warming has its corporate stooges mystifying the American public. (See my comments on Edward L. Bernay)

To regress, lining up opposing arguments looks something like this:

• Global Warming exists.
• Global Warming does not exist.
• Current ecological changes occur because of Global Warming, in addition to climate and ecological patterns of change..
• Current climate and ecological changes occur without Global Warming.
• Humans cause Global Warming.
• Humans have no responsibility for causing Global Warming.

What we do not see in these two arguments are their scientific standing, their testing and peer review. What we find from the corporate argument resembles "I do not believe you" approach rather than "here's my proof." Put another way, the corporate argument has little standing when placed next to the scientific arguments..

Exactly what is the Greenhouse Effect?

We use the term "greenhouse effect" because CO2 increases show an increase in planetary temperature increases. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane also add to the mix of greenhouse gases.

The term "greenhouse effect" came into use in the early 1800s. In those days it did not have a negative meaning. Its use described naturally occurring changes in these trace gases found in the atmosphere. Not until the mid 1950s did the term "greenhouse effect" became associated with global warming. When we hear the words "greenhouse effect," we often understand that our planet grows warmer.

We understood then that the greenhouse effect has natural causes as well as human; green house temperature increases have beneficial effects in Earth's history. In fact, humanity benefited mightily from temperature increases and global ice melt. Climate changes caused by solar cycles and changes in the sun's radiation caused Earth's surface temperature to rise. Keeping Earth's temperatures at life-friendly levels occurs as greenhouse levels more-or-less stead. At 60 F cooler than present, life could not exist.

Most US residents sooner or later visit a greenhouse. Here we learn how plants grow so well in a greenhouse environment. Sunlight enters through glass panels or even plastic, either preventing heat loss. As heat increases in these closed rooms, plants thrive as they receive warmth. Even in winter months a greenhouse protects plants enough to allow for their growth.

Earth's atmosphere works like greenhouse panels, in part. Trapped sunlight heat remains bound in Earth's environment rather than escape back into space. This occurrence has beneficial consequences, until it generates too much heat. Another common event familiar to westerners occurs when inside a closed car on a sunny day. Winter or summer, a car's interior environment becomes hot in a short time from the Sun's trapped heat. It doesn't take long for the inside temperature to grow warmer than the exterior temperature.

The sun's rays strike earth's atmosphere and surface every day. About 70% of the energy remains as absorbed by the land, oceans, plants, and other surfaces. About 30% of the Sun's heat energy reflects back into space. Among reflecting objects we find clouds, snow, and lightly colored objects. Eventually some part of the 70% absorbed returns to space. Remaining heat energy becomes absorbed by gases. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor trapped in Earth's atmosphere. Chemically reacting gases absorb heat. This creates heat energy and becomes part of our planet's warmth.

When we add to this naturally occurring heat system, human activities add to these naturally occurring gasses and temperature increases. When we burn oil in our vehicles, we create more greenhouse gases like CO2. Even burning coal and natural gas add to greenhouse gasses.

Added to the monumental amount of greenhouse gasses released since the burning of motor oil became world-wide and popular, deforestation created a double-edged CO2 sword. This means that on the one-hand, the loss of forests means that fewer trees and green plants exist to remove greenhouse gasses from Earth's atmosphere. On the other-hand, burning these forest for tree-farms and other agriculturally purposes adds great quantities of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere. We should keep in mind that that this double-whammy takes place in a very short period of time, considering the Earth's capacity to adjust to changes. We must not forget other species on Earth that must adapt to these rapid changes in greenhouse gasses and rising temperatures world-wide.

We know that these Earth changing forces increase the concentration of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. Like placing a plastic wrap around the Earth, these additional concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat. These greenhouse gases now react to their surrounding environment as if they are on steroids. More, these reactions have consequences in areas of the Earth far away from the site of these events.

Adding to these knowable events, sunlight's influence on the greenhouse effect has a different influence, depending on its area of impact. Forests, grasslands, oceans, ice, deserts, cities, and swamps all absorb and reflect radiation differently. Sunlight striking a glacier's surface reflects back into space. As a result it adds little to global warming or greenhouse gases. But then there's super absorbing desert soil's absorption of heat. Earth's oceans' deep blue waters serve as a heat absorbing substance.

Clouds play a double role. On the one-hand clouds reflect solar heat back into space; on the other-hand, clouds tend to trap heat within Earth's atmosphere. When there is more cloud cover, the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is reduced as is the amount of radiation emitted into space.

Greenhouse Gases

Science shows us that the greenhouse effect to five gases: water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane. There are other gases that contribute as well, but only in very small quantities. Of the five primary gases, water vapor accounts for 60%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the remaining three gases combine to make up the remaining 20%.

Water Vapor
Water vapor placed by human activity as a by-product of our manufacturing and agricultural practices added much water vapor to our atmosphere. It continues to do so. We created the conditions for water vapor's density by releasing mea-quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. Our activities cause water vapor as it evaporates from our planned and unplanned activities. A possible benefit of this occurrence arises from the atmospheric clouds absorption of solar radiation. On the other side of the argument are those who point to the fact that an increase in the amount of water vapor in the upper atmosphere leads to the formation of radiation absorbing clouds which have a moderating effect on the earth's temperatures.

Carbon dioxide reactions with oxygen give us another greenhouse gas. One carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side absorb radiation. These molecules begin to vibrate and emit radiation. Another greenhouse gas molecule then absorbs these CO2 molecules, trapping heat near the earth's surface. As a result a layer of gas insulation forms, protecting life from freezing cold in space.

What can we say, or what should we know about CO2? We should know that before the industrial revolution began in the 17th century, atmospheric CO2 measured at about 280 parts per million.

How do we know the density of CO2 four hundred years ago? We know from ice core samples taken by university scientists and government scientists. Repeatedly, ice core samples from about 400 hundred years ago show a CO2 content of about 280 parts per million. Universally today, CO2 density measures out at about 380 parts per million. This one-third increase in density of CO2 tells us something.

Another comment on science and ice core samples. Each sample has a log. Its log follows scientific method's documentation. How each core's extraction came about. What equipment was used. How the sample's gas content measurements were made. These findings then become open for criticism by others in this field of work. Students familiar with scientific journals know about these peer review journals and their articles. Whether or not a scientific research project meets the criteria set by scientific method comes under the scrutiny of subject matter experts. Subject matter experts in the field of ice core samples agree that and increase of over one-third occurred in CO2 between the start of the industrial revolution and the present.

Methane adds to the greenhouse gases. Since 1750, methane density increased by over 150%. Rice cultivation, domestic grazing animals, termites, landfills, coal mining, and oil and gas extraction helped to increase this gas. Alone, we might wonder, would methane alone have any influence over increases to our planet's temperature. If it did, would it have been at a slower pace, perhaps a pace slow enough for some life forms to adjust to these temperature increases. We will never know, but posing this question for research may lead to more answers.

When flooded, rice paddies undergo a series of anaerobic conditions. These conditions lead to methane production and its release. Likewise with animal grazing, here. animals' digestive systems release methane as they digest grass. Some researchers believe that this gas source quadrupled over the last century. As mentioned above, deforestation plays a significant role in reducing CO2 removal from the atmosphere while adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Ranching plays a role like that of farming. Meanwhile, the number of termites in the environment increases with their release of methane. These multiple sources of greenhouse gases all influence a temperature rise world-wide.

Scientists have also observed an increase in the average concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide is a common by-product of land use conversion (i.e. deforestation), fossil fuel combustion, bio-mass burning, and soil fertilization. When deforestation occurs and the land is converted to agricultural use, the nitrogen that is stored in the living vegetation and soil is released into the atmosphere through the decomposition of organic matter. The burning of fossil fuels and bio-mass are also responsible for some of the nitrous oxide found in the atmosphere. Even so, the combined effect of all these sources is minor.
What Does All This Mean?

In order to appreciate the importance of the greenhouse effect, it may be helpful to consider for a moment what Earth might be like with out it.
Scientists believe that without the warming effect of the greenhouse gases, Earth might closely resemble Mars. For those who might need a quick astronomy refresher, Mars is very cold because its atmosphere isn't thick enough to reflect enough heat back to the planet. As a result, the daytime surface temperature can range anywhere from 80 F to -200 F at the poles during the winter months. The air temperature, on the other hand, rarely rises much higher than 32 F.

In an effort to determine if Mars could eventually become warm enough to sustain life, scientists have suggested a process called "terra forming" in which water vapor and carbon dioxide are dispelled into the air. It is thought that over time the atmosphere might thicken enough to retain enough heat to allow plants to live on the planet's surface. If this proves to be correct, then scientists argue it is possible that in thousands of years, this manufactured greenhouse effect might be adequate to sustain human life.

Weather now an indicator of Global Warming?

I've never based my theory of crime scene cleanup's global warming problems on weather events. It's too far and to advanced an idea to find cause and effect. Perhaps later as our earth sciences grow we'll be able to make some claims in this regard. Now there's accounts of wide swings between wet and dry periods indicating global warming. A professor at Princeton University has a new program for these studies. He claims that notable weather fluctuations in the 1990s out did similar fluctuations in the 1080s by number.

I'm still a skeptic in these matters. I'll stick to my theory based upon the number of ongoing fires our planet suffers daily. Most of these come by way of internal combustion engines. As a result Co2 of hugh amounts poison our atmosphere. We can find the professors most recent article in the Journal of Climate. Reportedly, wider fluctuations in rain and draught effect over one-third of earth at this time.

So, I'm sorry kids, but it looks like your parents and grandparents have not listened to me or my kind.

 

Disclaimer

Nobody appointed humanity to play God with nature. And as a radical environmentalist, I do not need Global Warming to stoke my activist fires. Humanity's war against species-populations in the wild gives me more than enough cause to act. Humanity's propensity to over-populate itself gives me more than enough cause to call myself "radical." It happens that Global Warming threatens to destroy untold species-populations in the wild. My concern for species-populations in the wild is what makes me a "radical environmentalist," politically and philosophically speaking. I make no apologies. Eddie Evans

Wall Street Journal: Global Warming Real

It's a genuine task to point out which republican and democrat criminal behavior surpasses previous criminal acts. We must point to the denial of evidence pointing to worldwide global warming. We must point to deniers who should know better. With the damage done to future generation's survival prospects, politicians continue to cause confusion among our population.

Well, last week, The Wall Street Journal published an article on global warming, which indicated the reality and scientific validity of a global warming chorus in science.

Scientists repeatedly find that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades continues abruptly and in large numbers/ They know their numbers remain consistent with models developed by different climate researchers. Fossil fuel burning by humans remains the chief cause. Now thanks to professor Muller, a one-time skeptic, we know that other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Muller's science team examined five times as many temperature readings as did other researchers — a total of 1.6 billion records — and now have put that merged database online. Muller showed that skeptics error by claiming that there's a a “heat island” effect from urbanization. He found that even rural areas show rapid warming, too.

The Wall Street Journal reported that "Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless."

Eddie Evans - October 28, 2011